News out of Iraq today from the Los Angeles Times, a fierce critic of the war, quotes several anonymous military sources they say are close to General Petreaus, that the government of Prime Minister Maliki will fail to achieve any of the major political goals set by the Administration when the troop surge began:

U.S. military leaders in Iraq are increasingly convinced that most of the broad political goals President Bush laid out early this year in his announcement of a troop buildup will not be met this summer and are seeking ways to redefine success.

In September, Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top American commander in Iraq, is scheduled to present Congress with an assessment of progress in Iraq. Military officers in Baghdad and outside advisors working with Petraeus doubt that the three major goals set by U.S. officials for the government of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki will be achieved by then.

Enactment of a new law to share Iraq’s oil revenue among Sunni, Shiite and Kurdish regions is the only goal they think might be achieved in time, and even that is considered a long shot. The two other key benchmarks are provincial elections and a deal to allow more Sunni Arabs into government jobs.

With overhauls by the central government stalled and with security in Baghdad still a distant goal, Petraeus’ advisors hope to focus on smaller achievements that they see as signs of progress, including local deals among Iraq’s rival factions to establish areas of peace in some provincial cities.

The political realities facing the Iraqi government are no secret and it doesn’t take high ranking aides to Petreaus to tell us what has been obvious at least since the beginning of April; that Maliki is unable to bring most of the Shia parties along with him (if he himself is even committed to many of these political goals) in an effort to reconcile the country’s factions and bring peace to Iraq.

The fact is, we can point to our great successes in Anbar province and elsewhere in defeating the insurgency and al-Qaeda but if Baghdad continues to bleed the way it does today, there is no way the surge will be seen as a success in any way, shape, or form. Of course, most of the press, the Democrats, and the left have already declared the surge a failure which makes subduing Baghdad even more important. And in this case, we are bedeviled by the fact that the terrorists only have to succeed once and a while in setting off huge bombs that kill dozens of people for the perception to kick in that the surge has been useless.

Couple the continued bloodshed in Baghdad with the inability (or outright refusal) of the Maliki government to deal with sharing oil revenue, de-Baathication, and constitutional changes and you can see where Petreaus aides are coming from. The surge is next to useless without the Iraqi government using any reduction in violence and the subsequent increase in confidence by the people that this would inspire to reach out to the Sunnis who are cooperating with us in Anbar and other provinces and make them partners in rebuilding the country.

What’s the answer then? Apparently, we are beginning to shift the playing field, bypassing the empty suit of a prime minister, and dealing with the problem of reconciliation Anbar-style; by making deals with the Sheiks and their tribes at the local level:

Military officers said they understood that any report that key goals had not been met would add to congressional Democrats’ skepticism. But some counterinsurgency advisors to Petraeus have said it was never realistic to expect that Iraqis would reach agreement on some of their most divisive issues after just a few months of the American troop buildup.

The advisors and military officers say the local deals and advances they see are not insignificant and can be building blocks of wider sectarian reconciliation.

Military officers in Iraq said the efforts included recruiting Sunni Arab nationalists into security forces, forging agreements among neighborhoods of rival sects, establishing new businesses in once-violent areas and shifting local attitudes.

Frederick W. Kagan, a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research and early advocate of the troop buildup, said the military would have few major political accomplishments to report by September. “I think the political progress will be mostly of this local variety,” said Kagan, who recently visited Iraq and met with American commanders.

This is an intriguing approach and once again I weep because we waited 4 years to try it. But the sad fact is, the sands in the hour glass are draining fast and all the signs point to a dramatic political change in September if Petreaus can’t convince lawmakers – and through them the American people – that the progress being made at the local level is worth the expenditure in lives and treasure this war has cost us already.

It is still unclear to me how this progress at the local level will translate into putting the pieces of Iraqi society back together. In some ways, it sounds as if it could actually work to further separate the factions:

The push for smaller, local deals represents a significant shift for the Bush administration, which has emphasized that security in Baghdad has to be the top priority to allow the central government to make progress toward national political reconciliation. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates have pressured Iraqi political leaders to reach key agreements by the end of summer.

But Gates said last week that U.S. officials may have over-emphasized the importance of Iraq’s central government.

“One of the concerns that I’ve had,” Gates said, “was whether we had focused too much on central government construction in both Iraq and Afghanistan and not enough on the cultural and historical, provincial, tribal and other entities that have played an important role in the history of both countries.”

The new command has realized that there will be no quick national-level deal on the key issues, said the senior military officer in Baghdad.

“You are talking about Sunnis who had power and Shiites who have power forgetting about what happened over the last 30 years,” the officer said. “How easy is that going to be?”

In Iraq, local leaders have doubts about the central government’s abilities to make a meaningful deal.

“The sheiks are not waiting to see if the law is passed or not,” Kagan said. “The Iraqi local leaders clearly don’t see reconciliation as something that has to come from the top or necessarily should come from the top.”

There is good reason that local leaders don’t trust the central government. They have promised much and delivered nothing. And the fact that it is generally recognized in the country that the writ of Baghdad law does not run much outside of Baghdad itself makes the Sheiks wonder how the central government could enforce any agreements it makes with other factions like the Mahdi Army or the Badr Organization who Sunnis see as largely responsible for the sectarian killings. Perhaps they consider it suicide to trust the national government to rein in the militias through any agreements signed with them.

Frankly, I just don’t think our progress in Anbar and other provinces will be enough to convince the Congress to grant the Administration the time it needs to assist the Iraqis in pacifying their country and leave behind a viable state. The Democrats will return with a vengeance hawking their timetables and advocating a cut off in funds on some date certain. They will be driven by their base of rabid netnuts who are already livid with most Democratic lawmakers for what they see as caving in to the President this last go around on Iraq funding.

And not surprisingly, they will be joined by a substantial number of Republicans who fear for their electoral lives. Just over the horizon, it is easy to discern the political disaster for the GOP if they stick with a lame duck Commander in Chief at less than 30% in the polls who refuses to budge on doing what a majority of Americans want him to do; start bringing the troops home.

It should also not come as a surprise that when both Democrats and Republicans are driven by fear, the chances of something less than desirable for the national interest coming out of this mess are considerably increased. What is needed is rationality and a compromise both sides can live with. What we will probably end up getting is political panic and bitter recriminations over who to blame for our situation.

General Petreaus will make a public pronouncement after the September timeline in place for the surge. With major presidential primaries moving to the first quarter of ‘08, and politics front and center in the nation’s awareness, any Republican’s move away from Bush at that time will simply look like Sen. Clinton trying to run away from her Iraq war funding vote. It ain’t gonna fly. That dog won’t hunt.

And it is not just the netnuts advocating getting out of the Iraq mess. The number of credible people still favoring sticking it out in Iraq has dwindled down to just a few.

The time to move away from Bush is past. He will sink the Republicans in ‘08 like a rock.

[...] Are you suprised?Â Who is and isn’t?Â Captain’s Quarters, Dick Polman’s American Debate, Right Wing Nut House, Happy Furry Puppy Story â€¦, The Impolitic, The Carpetbagger Report, The Atlantic Online, Washington Monthly and Rising Hegemon [...]

3

PSMarc93 Said:
1:18 pm

“What is needed is rationality on both sides”?
When has this administration been rational about its policy? The opportunities you see for helping Iraq from by-passing the Malaki government are pipe dreams, as are all rational solutions to this mess, because this administration will not acknowledge and learn from mistakes, nor does it consider other suggestions for progress “rational” or otherwise. I’m so tired of arguing with conservatives that we liberals are NOT against victory—we’d even be open to a continued military action in Iraq—if the program were run by any one other than the bumbling egomanics presently in office. The only choice the current Nimrods give us, is to take away the keys to the program and park it until we can find a driver that can think straight.
Dream up all the rational solutions you can, we may need them when someone in the White House will care to listen to you.

4

ibfamous Said:
2:38 pm

success in anbar? look again. oh, and keep and eye on kirkuk too. you can’t just move pieces around the board and say you have all the bases covered.

5

Chris Said:
2:46 pm

Yes, heaven forbid that when we finally hit upon a strategy that delivers results, incremental though they may be, something that can possibly be built upon, that we stick with that strategy. Obviously the administration was grossly incompetent in trying out other solutions that also presumably needed some time to see if they were working.

The mood of this country is more and more resembling that of a teenager. Inability to concentrate for more than a few months at a time, lack of ability to look more than same time into the future, refusal to contemplate possible consequences of actions because they don’t make us feel good.

If we screw this up, and I mean we as a country, not Bush, not the Democrats, all of us, then no one is going to trust us to deliver. We gave welfare reform ten years before we decided it had worked. Too bad we didn’t give up on it, either, just because it made people feel bad. Just think of the opportunity to keep repeating that mistake we missed out on.

6

gil Said:
6:16 pm

Answer to Chris

You sound like you want America to stay until we “win” .

Let me remind you of a few realities that can open your eyes (if you try) to the imposibility of a clear win in Iraq.

Reality No 1. Our Army and Army Reserves are now running on fumes. Mr. Bush has made sure that in “supporting” our troops, he almost nearly dismanteled our proud Armed Forces. Today only fools or delusional people can still be counted to believe that we can stay in Iraq at present or bigger troop levels and accomplish anithing resembling a victory as defined by Bush and his followers. In short, we don’t have the troops to stay there for the duration that can extend to decades.

Reality No 2. Al Malaki clearly does not have the influence with the SHiite that is required to bring them to the table. Absent that there will be no compromise with the Sunni and the Kurds and absent a compromise there will be no end to the violence in Iraq surge or no surge. Maibe that’s why the Iraqi politicians decided to use the time Bush gave them with the surge to go on a two month vacation, after all what’s the point in staying in Baghdad and pretend any more? Too bad our soldiers can’t take a vacation too.

Reality No 3. Even if we would accomplish all our goals in Iraq we would only empower Iran. We all know that a Democratic Iraq represents a Shiite Iraq. If you know anithing about the Shiite kow this…. They will ally themselves with their brothers the Shiite in Iran. SO what kind of sacrifice are we making???? If Bush is an idiot it does not mean that we all are supposed to become idiots too you know.

I can go on, and on but you get the picture. Reality is a bitch sometimes, but you have to face it.

7

Joe Public Said:
11:20 pm

These “successes” are reconciling with many of those very same insurgents who were killing our soldiers with IEDs and ambushes – and allying against the hard core jihadi types. It’s finally a more practical approach, but how long do you think this new detente will last?

Iraq is a very complex and fluid place. The last four years have shown that we are incredibly out of our depth there. These Anbar successes happen while we have lose over 100 soldiers this month in fatalities. They happen knowing full well we do not the force necessarily to pacify. We don’t choose the terms of engagement, they do.

All we’re doing is letting other people cash the checks of this administration’s mouthpieces. A shame…a disgusting shame.

8

Chris Said:
9:52 am

It’s Congress’s responsibility to expand or contract the armed forces. True, the President should have been asking them to expand them before this, but the commitment wasn’t expected to be this total.

Combat troops are always at a premium. We kept units in the front lines until they were worn to a nub in WWII and Korea. That seems to be a military decision, not a political one.

Every time this debate comes up, we hear about what we can’t do, how we’re in over our heads, how we don’t understand our enemies or allies. This is exactly the attitude that aggravates me. We can “win” this war if we put our minds to it. “Victory” would be a functioning democracy in the heart of the Caliphate. The fact that we can’t muster the political will to do so because of our bifurcated polity does not mean that we lack the capacity.

9

Drongo Said:
10:12 am

“These â€œsuccessesâ€ are reconciling with many of those very same insurgents who were killing our soldiers with IEDs and ambushes â€“ and allying against the hard core jihadi types. Itâ€™s finally a more practical approach, but how long do you think this new detente will last?”

About until the hardcore Jihadis get killed, possibly long enough for a whole lot of ex-insurgents to go through the police training academy and get given shiny uniforms, new guns and access-all-areas passes, I would imagine.

10

gil Said:
2:44 pm

Chris.

You are not listening to reson.

You are makin several incorrect assumptions.

1. Congress is not the one that will decide what policy America will follow in Iraq. As it has been demonstrated, it is the President acting as the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces that decides troop levels, as well as war strategy. As we stand, the Republican Party (unless they are suicidal) are getting ready to “cut and run” from Bush’s failed policy in Iraq come September. I believe the last straw for a lot of Republican politicians, was to see the Iraqi Government respond to our surge by going on a two month vacation.

2. The troop levels that could make a difference are in the several hundreds of thousands, and the time frame in the decades. And that’s provided that some day some how the Shiite the Sunni, and the Kurds would be willing to live together in Iraq. That’s not our call to make Chris, and America will not stand for that kind of open- ended commitment. It’s a bridge too far.

3. Every day that goes by with more killings logic tell’s you that the Shiite, Sunni, and Kurds feelings of hatred toward each other increases. Every day that goes by on this Civil War, or mess take your pick, the eductaed people of iraq, the professionals, and the peace makers simply go live somwhere else, and what’s left is a failed nation with no foundations upon a come back can be supported.

4. A Shiite Iraq will ally itself with Iran. Iran is our worst enemy in the world. Why would any one want to risk this kind of result. Why would America want to stay in Iraq for decades, loose tens of thousands of lives only to end up empowering Iran?

If you get frustrated about people telling you and others what we can’t do…. Is because we CAN NOT DO IT. Is not our fault that your policies from the get go were incorrect.

You see Chris is like building a house. If your foundation was designed for a 2,000 sq/ft home, and some smart ass tries to build a 3,000 sq/ft house instead….I don’t have to tell you it just ain’t going to work, and to listen to the people that no doubt would call to your attention to that FACT, would be the wise thing to do…. Unless you want to call them nay- sayers, and end up dead when the roof collapses on top of you.

As the basis for this plan actually took four years to make before the foundation of it could even get put down, I have little problem with it. That is one of the things I look at a bit ago making sure that I had a good basis for understanding just what the conditions on the ground in Iraq were like. This could not have been implemented 4 years ago, 3 years ago, 2 years ago and was only starting to get any traction last August to September. This Nation, both Right and Left, have not bothered to actually study post-war situations and that leaves one bereft of any accurate yardsticks to place Iraq and Afghanistan against. Going slow?

Compared to what?

Four situations come to mind in COIN work: the 1960’s in Algeria, the British experience with the Malay, the US experience in Haiti 1915-34, and the ending of the Moro insurgency in the Philippines 1901-10. That last makes what is going on in Iraq look like a cakewalk in comparison, as it had some of the most vicious forms of fighting the US Army and Marines have ever experienced, for all the fact it was a small forces affair. Each of those took as long or, like Haiti, much longer than Iraq and Afghanistan have gone on and Haiti was a failure due to the political class in the US unwilling to set its mind on any goal and stick to it. That sounds disturbingly familiar.

Congress in authorizing force in Iraq has the responsibility of ensuring that the Armed Forces are properly sized, scoped out, equipped, and that stores and supplies are available in the pipeline for them. After the 1990’s and the draw-down, in which two Army divisions fell to their lowest rating since Vietnam, something that has not been reached since even with active combat going on, the deficiencies in the Congressional outlook over that last 15 years is reprehensible. Ditto two Executives.

Congress put forward a long bill of particulars for Iraq and then did not do its job of ensuring that the Nation was prepared for however long it would take. I personally expected 8-15 years of combat. But then that is typical for a small forces counter-insurgency campaign in a single Nation. Two of them? Where is Congress? Oh, they are looking to dissolve the borders and flood the Nation with anyone that can get to Mexico and run over it… even if that includes tens or hundereds or more from the Middle East, like Syria, Jordan, Iran, Iraq, Egypt.

Then those lovely congresscritters have the audacity to go up and complain about the lack of spares, stores and supplies… which they are supposed to scope out, fund and ensure that they are procured. Lovely, that: “You didn’t get what you needed because we didn’t buy it… bad on the President for not doing our job!”

I have yet to hear what other conflict that Iraq is supposed to be compared to by any naysayer or critic of the conflict. That might take cracking open some history books. Looking at force levels. Looking at industrial commitment. Looking at the uses and abuses of propaganda by all concerned.

Instead of perspective, there is collective myopia on the political class and their supporters as everything gets turned into political fodder. Meanwhile the Nation dissolves out from under our feet because the corrosive effects of that outlook has removed any common ground with which to have a Nation. The lovely era of Nation State warfare from the 20th century is gone. The current enemies are trying to drag us back past the 19th century, past 1648 and all the way back to the 7th century. Our lovely Nation State tools of the 20th century are not able to handle that. And if you look before that you will find the tools… but we lack the will and foresight to be willing to fight as the founders did and take up their viewpoint on warfare. Mind you they did have a democracy then.